Choosing to ignore U.N. arms treaty makes little sense

Efforts to control the $70 billion a year global market in conventional weapons got a big boost when the United States signed the U.N. arms trade treaty, joining more than 100 other countries in affirming the need to keep these weapons out of the hands of unscrupulous regimes, militants and criminals.

But the work isn't done. At least 50 U.N. member countries, including the United States, must ratify the treaty for it to take effect; only six have done so. Proponents fear final ratification could take years.

The treaty covers global trade in tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber weapons, combat aircraft and helicopters, warships, missile and launchers and small arms — the kind that fuel conflicts and kill innocents in Syria, Sudan and beyond.

The treaty would require states to review all cross-border arms contracts, establish national control systems and deny exports to purchasers who might use the weapons for terrorism or violations of humanitarian law.

The National Rifle Association rejects this sensible regulation. It is opposed to the arms treaty even though it has no impact on the American market.

Experts and officials say the treaty won't impose any new requirements on the federal government or American companies because laws and regulations already require manufacturers to comply with a comprehensive export control system.

Although the treaty has no enforcement power, its export control requirements, coupled with disclosure provisions to shame violators, could help reduce the spread of weapons in conflict zones.

In a world where virtually every major commodity is subject to agreements, allowing weapons to avoid any review or regulation is irresponsible.